161. ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS 181

ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS 181

the name of Santa, because attachment and aversion, which have been associated with the self from time immemorial, cannot totally be uprooted. The statement is so brief that its implication is not quite clear. / If, however, it be supposed to imply that in no case and under no circumstances can they be totally uprooted, it would mean that the fourth object of human life, the final emancipation, is impossible, a view which no follower of the orthodox systems of Indian thought, excepting of course the Carvaka and to some extent the Mimamsaka can accept, much less can a Saiva like Abhinavagupta. But if it means that such a state of freedom from all desires and aversions is not possible in the spectator, it would mean that no æsthetic experience is possible, because such a state of freedom is involved in all, a position which the opponents themselves will be most unwilling to hold.d,18 III. OPPOSITION ON THE BASIS OF THE INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF BHARATA.

Bharata, while defining Dima, one of the ten types of drama, says that in it only six Rasas ought to be presented and that Srngara and Hasya have to be totally excluded from it. Because Bharata mentions only eight Rasas here, six to be presented and two to be excluded, some opponents take it as an evidence of Bharata's non-admission of Santa. They argue that if Bharata had accepted Santa as an independent Rasa, he would have surely included it in the list of either presentable or unpresentable Rasas in Dima. Hence they conclude that there is no Santa Rasa. ITS CRITICISM.

Abhinava refutes this view as follows :-

Bharata's definition of Dima, rather than being an